Getachew v. 7-Eleven, Inc. et al
ORDER denying 64 Plaintiffs' Motion Requesting the Court To Reconsider Its June 8, 2012 Order and Disregard Its Consideration of Defendant's "Judicial Notice" Because He Did Not Confer with the Plaintiff as the Court Rule Requires. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 6/26/12.(mjgsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 11-cv-02421-REB-MJW
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The matter before me is Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting the Court To
Reconsider Its June 8, 2012 Order and Disregard Its Consideration of Defendant’s
“Judicial Notice” Because He Did Not Confer with the Plaintiff as the Court Rule
Requires [#64]1 filed June 25, 2012. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of my Order Re:
Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge [#56] filed June 8, 2012.
Exercising my prerogative to rule on the motion without benefit of a response,
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C., I deny the motion.
The bases for granting reconsideration are extremely limited:
Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence
previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice. Thus, a motion for
reconsideration is appropriate where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the
“[#64]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations
omitted). Plaintiff’s motion offers nothing suggesting that any of these grounds are
implicated in this case.
Instead, it appears that plaintiff is confused by the reference at page 1 of the
Order to “more recent developments in the case.” That reference was linked to my
order re-referring defendant’s motion to dismiss to the magistrate judge in light of
plaintiff’s stated intention not to amend his complaint despite the magistrate judge’s
order directing him to do so. It had no relation to defendant’s Notice of Filing in
Related Case and Request for the Court To Take Judicial Notice [#53] filed May 22,
2012, which notice I did not consider in issuing my ruling.2
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion Requesting the Court
To Reconsider Its June 8, 2012 Order and Disregard Its Consideration of
Defendant’s “Judicial Notice” Because He Did Not Confer with the Plaintiff as the
Court Rule Requires [#64] filed June 25, 2012, is DENIED.
Dated June 26, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
To the extent that plaintiff complains that defendant filed the request without conferring with him
as required by the Local Rules, that issue can be addressed, if appropriate, within the context of the
magistrate judge’s consideration of the motion to dismiss.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?